The Times - Saturday, April 27, 1895
This report was originally published in English. Machine translations may be available in other languages.
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT, April 26.
(Before Mr. Justice Charles.)
OSCAR WILDE, 40, author, and ALFRED TAYLOR, 33, were indicted under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act for the commission of acts of gross indecency, some of the counts charging Taylor with procuring the commission of those acts, and there were other counts charging the prisoners with conspiring together to commit and to procure the commission of those acts, the charge being one of misdemeanour
The trial of OSCAR WILDE, 40, author, and ALFRED TAYLOR, 33, upon an indictment charging them under section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act with committing acts of gross indecency, some of the counts charging Taylor with procuring the commission of those acts, and other counts charging the prisoners with conspiring together to commit and to procure the commission of those acts, was resumed.
The trial of OSCAR WILDE, 40, author, and ALFRED TAYLOR, 33, upon an indictment charging them under section 11 of tho Criminal Law Amendment Act with committing acts of gross indecency, some of the counts charging Taylor with procuring the commission of those acts, and other counts charging the prisoners with conspiring together to commit and to procure the commission of those acts, was resumed.
The trial of OSCAR WILDE, 40, author, and ALFRED TAYLOR, 33, upon an indictment charging them under section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act with the commission of acts of gross indecency, some of the counts charging Taylor with procuring the commission of those acts, and other counts charging the prisoners with conspiring to commit and to procure the commission of those acts, was resumed.
The trial of Mr. Oscar Wilde, 40, author, and Alfred Taylor, 33, upon an indictment charging them, under section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, with committing acts of gross indecency, some of the counts charging Taylor with procuring the commission of these acts, and other counts charging the prisoners with conspiring together to commit and to procure the commission of these acts, was resumed.
The greatest interest was taken into the case, the Court being crowded.
Mr. C.F. Gill and Mr. Horace Avory conducted the prosecution on the part of the Director of Public Prosecutions; Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., Mr. Charles Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys defended Wilde, and Mr. J.P. Grain and Mr. Paul Taylor defended Taylor. Mr. Leonard Kershaw held a watching brief.
Mr. C.F.Gill and Mr. Horace Avory conducted the prosecution on the part of the Director of Public Prosecutions; Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., Mr.Charles Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys defended Wilde; and Mr.J,P. Grain and Mr. Paul Taylor defended Taylor. Mr. Leonard Kershaw held a watching brief.
Mr. F.C. Gill and Mr. Horace Avory conducted the prosecution on the part of the Director of Public Prosecutions; Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., Mr. Charles Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys defended Wilde; and Mr. J.P. Grain and Mr. Paul Taylor defended Taylor. Mr. Leonard Kershaw and A.F.S Pasmore held watching briefs.
Mr. C. F. Gill and Mr. Horace Avory conducted the prosecution on the part of the Director of Public Prosecutions; Sir Edward Clarke, Q. C., Mr. Charles Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys defended Wilde; and Mr. J . P. Grain and Mr. Paul Taylor defended Taylor. Mr. Leonard Kershaw and Mr. A. F. S. Pasmore held watching briefs.
Mr. C. F. Gill with Mr. Horace Avory conducted the prosecution on behalf of the Public Prosecutor; Sir E. Clarke, Q.C., Mr. Charles Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys defended Wilde; Mr. J. P. Grain and Mr. Paul Taylor defended Taylor; and Mr. Leonard Kershaw watched the case on behalf of certain parties interested.
Mr. C. P. Gill and Mr. Horace Avory conducted the prosecution on the part of the Director of Public Prosecutions; Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., Mr. Charles Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys defended
Mr. C. F. Gill and Mr. H. Avory prosecuted on behalf of the Treasury; Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., Mr. Charles Mathews and Mr. Travers Humphreys defended Oscar Wilde; Mr. J. P. Grain and Mr. Paul Taylor defended Alfred Taylor.
The Solicitor-General (Sir F. Lockwood, Q.C.), Mr, C.F. Gill, and Mr. Horace Avory conducted the prosecution on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., Mr. Charles Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys defended Wilde; and Mr. J.P. Grain defended Taylor.
Sir. C. F. Gill and Mr. H. Avory prosecuted on behalf of the Treasury; Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C, Mr. Charles Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys defended Oscar Wilde; Mr. J. P. Grain and Mr. Paul Taylor defended Alfred Taylor.
Mr. C. F. Gill and Mr. H. Avory prosecuted on behalf of the Treasury; Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., Mr. Charles Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys defended Oscar Wilde; Mr. J. P. Grain and Mr. Paul Taylor defended Alfred Taylor; Mr. Leonard Kershaw watched the case on behalf of persons interested.
Before the defendants were called upon to plead to the indictment,
SIR EDWARD CLARK submitted that they could not be called upon to plead to it. There were 25 counts in the indictment, some of them alleging the commission of acts under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, and there were other counts charging the procuring of the commission of those acts, and also counts charging the defendants with conspiring to do those acts. Upon the charges of the commission of those acts and the procuring of the commission of those acts the defendants were by the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, competent witnesses, but upon the charge of conspiracy they were not competent witnesses. In these circumstances he submitted that the defendants could not be called upon to plead to the indictment, as on one set of charges contained in it they were competent witnesses, while on the other set of charges contained in it they could not be competent witnesses. He therefore demurred to the indictment as containing inconsistent counts.
Mr. C.F. GILL said that the prisoners were charged in the indictment with committing acts under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, and they were clearly available witnesses if they desired to give evidence with regard to those charges. The only other charges in the indictment were charges of agreement to commit the acts which they were charged with committing under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885.
MR. JUSTICE CHARLES said the question of substance was whether the counts could be lawfully joined, having regard to the present state of the law, in the same indictment. Unquestionably, prior to the passing of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, counts for substantive misdemeanours and conspiracies to commit them might be lawfully joined, although, if justice should require it, the prosecution might be called upon to elect on which counts they would proceed. Could they be lawfully joined now? Had it made any difference in criminal pleading that on some of the counts defendants were competent witnesses and on others they were not? He was unable to agree with Sir Edward Clarke's view. He himself thought that, although the Legislature had prescribed that with reference to offences under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, defendants were competent witnesses, that circumstance had not altered the general law with reference to the joinder of counts for misdemeanour. Although he felt the inconvenience of the present state of things, he did not think the fact that the prisoners were competent witnesses on some of the counts and were not competent witnesses on the other counts authorized him to say that by law those counts could not be joined in the same indictment.
The prisoners pleaded "Not guilty."
SIB EDWARD CLARKE then asked Mr. Justice Charles to put the prosecution to the election whether they would proceed on the counts for conspiracy or on the other counts.
Sir E Clarke then raised the further point that the prosecution must elect whether they would proceed on the count of conspiracy or of misdemeanour.
Sir E Clarke then raised the point that the prosecution must elect whether they would proceed on the count of conspiracy or upon the count of misdemeanor.
Sir E. Clarke then raised the point that the prosecution must elect whether they would proceed on the count of conspiracy, or upon the count of misdemeanour.
Sir E Clarke then raised the point that the prosecution must elect whether they would proceed on the count of conspiracy or upon the count of misdemeanour.
MR. JUSTICE CHARLES said he did not think he would be justified in putting the prosecution to the election on which counts they would proceed.
Mr. GILL, in opening the case, said he was sure the jury would dismiss from their minds anything which they might have heard or read with regard to the case, and would approach the consideration of it with minds perfectly fair and impartial, and that they would watch closely the evidence which would be put before them on the part of the prosecution. He then explained how it was that this prosecution had been instituted by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The charges against the prisoners were in connexion with youths, who would be called before the jury. The charge against Taylor with regard to some of these youths, if not all of them, was that he acted for the other prisoner-- that he procured these youths in order that the prisoner Wilde might have an opportunity of committing acts of gross indecency with them. The prisoners were also charged with an agreement together that youths should be procured in order that the prisoner Wilde might commit those acts with them. On the counts under section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, the defendants could be called as witnesses if they so desired.
MR. JUSTICE CHARLES said that the defendants were only competent witnesses on the counts under section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885.
Mr. GILL, continuing, gave an outline of the circumstances of the case as alleged on the part of the prosecution, and briefly indicated what the evidence would be which would be adduced on the part of the prosecution.
Witnesses were then called and examined.
Charles Parker, 21 years of age, deposed to his introduction to Wilde by Taylor and to his subsequent relations with Wilde and Taylor in 1893. In August last year witness ceased to associate with Taylor, and did not see him again. Witness went into the country and enlisted.
In cross-examination by Sir Edward Clarke, Charles Parker said that he stated before the magistrate that he had received £30, part of a sum of money which had been extorted from a gentleman. Two men extorted the money from the gentleman--one of them being Wood and the other a man named Allen. Witness did not know that Wood had got £20 or £30 from Wilde in reference to some letters written by Wilde.
In cross-examination by Mr. GRAIN, the witness said that the sum of £30 which he had mentioned was the only sum he had received under similar circumstances. Wood had not suggested more than once that there were people from whom ho might obtain money in which witness might participate.
William Parker was the next witness examined. He said that the only occasion on which he met Wilde was at a dinner at a restaurant, when he and his brother Charles were introduced to him.
Evidence was then given describing the rooms occupied by Taylor in Little College-street. Taylor's visitors were young men from 16 years of age to his own age. The witness who gave the evidence describing Taylor's rooms never saw Wilde there.
Alfred Wood, who said he was formerly a clerk, was called and examined. His evidence was not concluded when the Court rose.
The hearing of the case was adjourned until to-morrow.